Saturday, November 18, 2006


From OpinionJournal:

IN MEMORIAM
Freedom Man
Milton Friedman had both genius and common sense.

BY THOMAS SOWELL


Saturday, November 18, 2006 12:01 a.m.

PALO ALTO, Calif.--Milton Friedman was one of the very few intellectuals with both genius and common sense. He could express himself at the highest analytical levels to his fellow economists in academic publications and still write popular books such as "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose" that could be understood by people who knew nothing about economics. Indeed, his television series, "Free to Choose," was readily understandable even by people who don’t read books.

Milton Friedman may well have been the most important economist of the 20th century, even if John Maynard Keynes was the most famous. No small part of Friedman’s achievement was rescuing economics from the pervasive and virtually unquestioned Keynesian orthodoxy that reigned in many places.

Ironically, Friedman began his career as a believer in both Keynesian economics and in the liberals’ vision of the world with which it was so compatible. Yet, in the end, no one did more to dethrone both. It is doubtful whether Ronald Reagan could have been elected president in 1980 without the changes in public opinion produced by Friedman’s work in the previous decades.

The Keynesians’ belief that government policy could wisely make trade-offs between rates of inflation and rates of unemployment was epitomized in the Phillips Curve, which seemed to lend empirical support to that belief. Friedman dealt that analysis a body blow when he argued that it was not the rate of inflation which reduced unemployment but the fact that inflation exceeded expectations.

In other words, even a high rate of inflation would not reduce unemployment if inflationary policies became so common as to be expected. The "stagflation" of the 1970s--with simultaneous double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment--validated what Friedman had said, in a way that no one could ignore.

Unlike so many intellectuals who have aspired to positions of power, Friedman preferred to remain outside of government and independent of politicians. His influence was nevertheless great because his ideas moved others, whether in the economics profession, in the general public or among policy makers.

Friedman’s many contributions to economics, recognized by the Nobel Prize that he received in 1976, were only part of his contributions to society at large. His decades-long campaign to promote school vouchers has been enshrined in the foundation named for him and his wife, the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. He was a compassionate conservative long before that term was coined, for the rich obviously do not need vouchers to get a decent education for their children.

Friedman’s own personal background made him familiar with the problems of those who begin life without the privileges of the elite--and of the importance of education as a way to advance beyond their beginnings. Born in Brooklyn in 1912 to immigrant parents, he grew up in New Jersey, living over his family’s store, and worked his way through Rutgers University. Later, he went on to postgraduate work at the University of Chicago. The rest, as they say, is history.

As the central figure in the "Chicago School" of economists, and an outstanding teacher, Friedman over the years sent forth into the world--overseas as well as in the U.S.--a stream of economists who influenced the thinking, and in some cases the policies, of countries all around the world. These students, along with his writings, are part of his enduring legacy. His popular writings, speeches and television appearances spread his ideas through successively wider circles of people, who passed these ideas on to others, many of whom may never had known where these ideas originated.

As one of those privileged to have studied under Friedman, I felt a special loss at his death but also a sense of good fortune to have learned from him, not only when I was at the University of Chicago but also in the years and decades since then. He was a tough, no-nonsense teacher in the classroom but a kind and generous human being outside.

Students were not allowed to walk into his classroom after his lecture had begun, distracting others. Once, I arrived at the door just minutes after Friedman began speaking and had to turn around and go back to the dormitory, wondering all the while whether what he taught that day would be on the next exam. After that, I was always in my seat when Friedman entered the classroom. He was also a tough grader. On one exam, there were only two B’s in the whole class--and no A’s.

The other side of Friedman was his generosity with his time to help students, and even former students. In later years, long after I had left the University of Chicago, he helped me with his criticisms and advice on my work--only when asked. When I was offered an appointment to the Federal Trade Commission in 1976, he was asked by the White House to urge me to accept but he declined to do so. It was the best non-advice I ever got. I would have been miserable at the FTC.

Although in recent years we were both members of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, we each lived miles away and neither of us was physically present there with any great frequency, so the chance that we would both be there on the same day was virtually nil. The last time I saw Friedman in person was in 2004, when we were jointly interviewed on television. Afterwards, he gave me a ride in his little sports car over to the Stanford faculty club, where we joined a group for lunch. Then he drove back to his home in San Francisco, 30 miles away, though he was at the time in his 90s.

More recently, I happened to chat briefly with Friedman on the phone a few days before his death, and found his mind to be as clear and sharp as ever. That will always be a special memory of a very special man, one of the giants of our time--intellectually, morally, and as a human being.

Loving thine enemy
The more the Islamists step on our toes, the more we waltz them gaily around the room

Mark Steyn
National Post


Thursday, November 16, 2006

After September 11, the first reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, so did the Prince of Wales, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, the prime minister of Canada and many more. And, when the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died away, you couldn't help feeling that this would strike almost any previous society as, well, bizarre. Pearl Harbor's been attacked? Quick, order some sushi and get me into a matinee of Madam Butterfly!

Seeking to reassure the co-religionists of those who attack you that you do not regard them all as the enemy is a worthy aim but a curious first priority. And, given that more than a few of the imams in those mosque photo-ops turned out to be at best equivocal on the matter of Islamic terrorism and at worst somewhat enthusiastic supporters of it, it involved way too much self-deception on our part. But it set the tone for all that followed, to the point where with each bomb or plot -- from September 11 to London to Toronto -- the protestations of Islam's good faith grew ever more fulsome.

Consider the name given to the current conflict: "war on terror." Wait a minute. Aren't wars usually waged against named enemies? Yes, but, to the progressive mind, the very concept of "the enemy" is obsolescent: There are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated. In part, it's societal forgetfulness. In an electronic age, a present-tense culture, we assume that social progress is like technological progress: It can't be reversed. Just as you can't disinvent the internal combustion engine, so you can't disinvent women's rights. Just as the horse and buggy yielded to the steam train and the Ford Model T and the passenger jet, so the advanced social-democratic society will march onward to state day care and 30-hour work weeks and gay marriage and ever greater ethnic diversity -- and nothing can turn it back, certainly not a lot of seventh-century weirdbeards. Many of us figure the Islamist plan to re-establish the caliphate is the equivalent of that moment in The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie when Plankton roars, "I'm going to rule the world!" Towering over him, SpongeBob says, "Good luck with that."

But you never know: It might be that we're the plankton. "Our enemies are small worms," Adolf Hitler told his generals in August 1939. "I saw them at Munich." In Europe today, as in the thirties, the political class prostrates itself before an insatiable force that barely acknowledges the latest surrender before moving on to the next invented grievance. Indeed, a formal enemy is all but superfluous to requirements. Bomb us, and we agonize over the "root causes." Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace." Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush and Blair. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "healthy-lifestyle low-fat granola bar." Thus the lopsided valse macabre of our times: the more the Islamists step on our toes, the more we waltz them gaily round the room.

As French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." During the Danish cartoon jihad, The New York Times gave a routinely pompous explanation of why it would not be showing us the representations of the Prophet: Sensitive news organizations, the editors explained, had the duty to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." The very next day, the Times illustrated a story on the Danish controversy with a piece of New York "art" from a couple of seasons earlier showing the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung. Multiculturalism seems to operate on the same even-handedness as the old Cold War joke in which the American tells the Soviet guy that "in my country everyone is free to criticize the president," and the Soviet guy replies, "Same here. In my country everyone is free to criticize your president." Under the rules as understood by The New York Times, the West is free to mock and belittle its Judeo-Christian inheritance, and, likewise, the Muslim world is free to mock and belittle the West's Judeo-Christian inheritance. If one has to choose, on balance Islam's loathing of other cultures seems psychologically less damaging than the Western elites' loathing of their own.

Insurgencies, whether explicitly terrorist or more subtle, persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets. The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they've calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.

- From America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it, by Mark Steyn. Published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. Copyright (Copyright) 2006 by Mark Steyn.

From Yahoo News:
Oasis's Noel Gallagher Plays Private Solo Gig In L.A.
By Lyndsey Parker


Thu Nov 9, 8:00 PM ET

Oasis are releasing a greatest-hits album, Stop The Clocks, later this month, and to celebrate, the band's Noel Gallagher and Gem played a special Los Angeles concert on Thursday, November 9, for listeners of local radio station Indie 103.1 FM. Presumably, Noel's brother/bandmate/occasional nemesis Liam Gallagher couldn't be bothered to make the journey across the pond to participate, but given that Noel has always been main songwriter for Oasis (and, some would say, the more vocally talented Gallagher brother), the delighted contest winners in the audience didn't seem to miss Liam at all.

After a screening of the Oasis tour documentary Lord Don't Stand Me Down, Noel, Gem, and a percussionist introduced only as "Gary" wordlessly made their way onto the stage of L.A.'s Wadsworth Theater, where they played a stripped-down concert starting with "(It's Good) To Be Free," "Talk Tonight," "Fade Away," and "Cast No Shadow." Noel then dryly quipped, "Let's play another song that's not coming out on our album," drolly referring to the fact that three of the set's first four songs are not even featured on Stop The Clocks. How Gallagher-like of him.

Throughout the show, Noel bantered in trademark Gallagher fashion with the diehard fans in attendance, gruffly grunting in response to their constant declarations of adoration and song requests (and once shushing them when he was trying to tune, and another time barking at them to "fook off" in his impenetrable Mancunian brogue). At one point, when a wiseguy in the audience cried out for a drum solo, Noel retorted, "You're obviously on very, very serious drugs. Someone should take them off of you and put them in my dressing room." And perhaps most amusingly, he introduced one song with, "This is a new song I've been working on; it sounds like something else and it's doing my f--king head in, [trying to figure out] what it is"...only to then play the Beatles' "Strawberry Fields Forever."

His demeanor may have been rough at times, but when Noel sang, his voice was positively crystalline, and the sound created onstage seemed far too big and bombastic to be the work of merely three musicians--especially on Noel's signature anthem, "Don't Look Back In Anger." Conversely, "Wonderwall" took on a wonderfully bluesy quality performed stark and solo by Noel, as did a sad and pensive version of "Slide Away" and the whimsical finale, "Digsy's Diner."

As the night ended and Noel declared, "We're going to get absolutely hammered after this" (a comment that was met with wild applause), Noel signed off in true Oasis fashion, saying, "Thank you for coming, but really, you should be thanking me, because I'm not getting paid for this and it cost me money to get here!"

Noel needn't have worried--judging from the elated crowd reaction, those who were lucky enough to attend this special gig were indeed quite thankful.

Friday, November 17, 2006



From Reason Express:

The Two John Edwards
How the '08 hopeful's PlayStation misstep
undermines his "Two Americas" meme.

By Jeff Taylor


November 17, 2006

Everyone loves a good hypocrite; they make us feel superior just for being consistent, if not competent. Accordingly the Internets are getting a good snort out of Wal-Mart basher John Edwards getting caught looking for Wal-Mart to hook him up with a Playstation 3.

Edwards explains that an overzealous campaign staffer – is there ever any other kind? – took his family's longings for a Playstation 3 a little too seriously. A call was placed to Wal-Mart to see if the Edwards clan could somehow jump to the front of the line for season's hottest gotta' have gift. Aside from the staffer's positively insane decision to reach out to a Raleigh Wal-Mart given all of Edwards' repeated slams of the company, nothing too surprising here. Just garden variety American ruling class behavior.

But Wal-Mart took that request and did something very unusual – it went on the offensive, issuing a mocking press release on the incident:

Just like the millions of Americans who turn to their neighborhood Wal-Mart for their holiday shopping needs, Wal-Mart announced today that former Sen. John Edwards is seeking to be one of the first to get a Sony PlayStation3, one of the most coveted holiday gift items this Christmas season.

That the Edwards request actually made its way to Bentonville, where a decision was made to respond, and to respond forcefully again sets Wal-Mart apart from most of corporate America. Try to imagine that happening with a Big 2.5 automaker, for example. News of the request would take a week to get past an iron guard of executive VPs. Wal-Mart acted in hours.

However, the slapstick of the Edwards misstep should not obscure the really big picture, the fatal flaw in his "Two Americas" spiel. Many thousands of Americans evidently have $600 to spend on a video game machine. What's more, this Christmas is expected to usher in the year of the flat-panel. With price points dropping below the $1000 mark, high-end TVs are moving down-market fast with Wal-Mart leading the way.

Contrary to the Edwards' pitch that labor-hostile companies are leaving American workers destitute, somebody is making some money out there in America. More importantly, they are making it in many, many cases without a union card. This reality will very hard for union-funded Democrats like Edwards to ignore as the 2008 presidential campaign unfolds. Hewing to the union rules, clear evidence of prosperity, like perhaps a shortage of $600 game machines, will have to be swept out of the campaign.

Impossible you say? Edwards has a head start. From his perch at the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the UNC Law School, Edwards has spent the past year and a half flying around the country telling everyone how bad things are. Predatory lenders, for example, are lending too much money to poor people who in some cases cannot pay the money back. Yes, things are bleak indeed.

The alternative to a Democratic presidential campaign marked by a downward spiral of Pythonseque depravation one-upsmanship might actually address issues like the federal entitlement explosion or comprehensive income tax reform, two areas where Republicans have failed miserably to advance any coherent solution. Should Edwards or Hillary Clinton or someone find away to talk about these things without class-warfare cant, they'll have a head start on the general election.

In any event, maybe the best thing for Wal-Mart to do is stop chortling and go ahead and give John Edwards a PS3 and a couple games. Throw in a flat-panel too. Maybe that way he'll reacquaint himself with American prosperity and abundance and be a better candidate for the experience.

Thursday, November 16, 2006



From Jewish World Review:

Nov. 15, 2006


Europe is finished, predicts Mark Steyn
By Daniel Pipes


New book combines humor, accuracy, depth

JWR's Mark Steyn, political columnist and cultural critic, has written a remarkable book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. He combines several virtues uncommonly found together — humor, accurate reportage, and deep thinking — then applies these to what is arguably the most consequential issue of our time: the Islamist threat to the West.

Mr. Steyn offers a devastating thesis but presents it in bits and pieces, so I shall pull it together here.

He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner "so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures." As a result, the establishment has "come to regard the electorate as children."

Second, the Soviet menace during the cold war prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe's (and Canada's) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and far-sighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side-effect of freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.

* The nanny state infantilized Europeans, making them worry about such pseudo-issues as climate change, while feminizing the males.

* It also neutered them, annexing "most of the core functions of adulthood," starting with the instinct to breed. From about 1980, birth rates plummeted, leaving an inadequate base for today's workers to receive their pensions.

* Structured on a pay-as-you-go basis, it amounted to an inter-generational Ponzi scheme, where today's workers depend on their children for their pensions.

* The demographic collapse meant that the indigenous peoples of countries like Russia, Italy, and Spain are at the start of a population death spiral.

* It led to a collapse of confidence that in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion," leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways.

To keep the economic machine running meant accepting foreign workers. Rather than execute a long-term plan to prepare for the many millions of immigrants needed, Europe's elites punted, welcoming almost anyone who turned up. By virtue of geographic proximity, demographic overdrive, and a crisis-prone environment, "Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans," Mr. Steyn writes.

Arriving at a time of demographic, political, and cultural weakness, Muslims are profoundly changing Europe. "Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare." Put differently, "Pre-modern Islam beats post-modern Christianity." Much of the Western world, Mr. Steyn flat-out predicts, "will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries." With even more drama, he adds that "it's the end of the world as we know it."

(In contrast, I believe that Europe still has time to avoid this fate.)

America Alone deals at length with what Mr. Steyn calls "the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia." Europe's successor population is already in place and "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be." He interprets the Madrid and London bombings, as well as the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, as opening shots in Europe's civil war and states, "Europe is the colony now."

The title America Alone refers to Mr. Steyn's expectation that the United States — with its "relatively healthy demographic profile" — will emerge as the lonely survivor of this crucible. "Europe is dying and America isn't." Therefore, "the Continent is up for grabs in a way that America isn't." Mr. Steyn's target audience is primarily American: watch out, he is saying, or the same will happen to you.

Pared to its essentials, he counsels two things: First, avoid the "bloated European welfare systems," declare them no less than a national security threat, shrink the state, and emphasize the virtues of self-reliance and individual innovation. Second, avoid "imperial understretch," don't "hunker down in Fortress America" but destroy the ideology of radical Islam, help reform Islam, and expand Western civilization to new places. Only if Americans "can summon the will to shape at least part of the emerging world" will they have enough company to soldier on. Failing that, expect a "new Dark Ages … a planet on which much of the map is re-primitivized."


From The New York Times Magazine, a profile of the brilliant Christopher Guest:
The Shape-Shifter
By ALEX WITCHEL


He didn’t talk much the first day. He didn’t talk much the second day. As I understand it, he doesn’t talk much most days. But in our 48 hours together, Christopher Guest showed me his childhood, fell in love — with a guitar — and even did comedy. With me as the straight man.

On our second day, as he sat on a couch at Mandolin Brothers, the venerable guitar store on Staten Island and the kind of mecca for him that Harry Winston is for Elizabeth Taylor, I also saw an aspect of how he makes the movies he directs, writes and acts in. He held his newest object of affection, what he called a “bizarre combination of a Gibson body and a National neck,” and in front of him stood Stan Jay, the store’s owner, wearing a blue shirt printed with yellow half moons and clouds. “My wife makes all my shirts,” he told Guest proudly. “She has her own company, Bea Jay Jeans, because her name is Beatrice Jay. See?” He showed Guest the label.

Guest nodded and Jay kept going, and the more intently Guest listened, the more earnestly Jay spoke, and it was a shame there was no camera, because while it looked as if Guest were only strumming a guitar, murmuring, “Is that so?” he was just as surely shaping a character who was delivering the monologue of his life. Like every character in a Christopher Guest movie, Jay had his dreams, albeit small ones: he wanted Guest to buy a guitar (he bought the banjo here that he learned to play for “A Mighty Wind”); and he wanted him to visit the guys downstairs in the repair shop. Done and done.

In Guest’s films, beloved by so many that they can recite the lines by heart, his characters also have dreams, though grander and harder to realize. In “Waiting for Guffman,” the citizens of Blaine, Mo., want their community-theater production to move to Broadway; in “Best in Show,” a variety of dog owners push their pooches to win top prize at a Westminster-like show; in “A Mighty Wind,” three folk acts whose 15 minutes of fame expired 35 years earlier get a crack at a comeback; in “This Is Spinal Tap,” which was directed by Rob Reiner and written by Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer and Reiner, washed-up rockers give a doomed comeback tour their all.

Like the writer and director Preston Sturges (“The Palm Beach Story,” “The Lady Eve”), whose wacky characters cherish their American dreams as lofty as building an airport suspended over a city or as low as cheating at cards, Guest has respect and affection for the oddballs he creates. No matter how absurd their circumstances, he always takes them seriously, which only makes them funnier. Their wrenching heartbreaks and tiny triumphs make them exactly like us.

His latest film, “For Your Consideration,” a scathing sendup of award-season hype that opens on Friday, employs his usual repertory of actors — McKean, Shearer, Eugene Levy (who has co-written most of Guest’s films), Parker Posey, Fred Willard and Catherine O’Hara, among them. Guest’s movies take months to write, as he and Levy painstakingly develop characters and plot. In “Consideration,” the unlikely Oscar candidate is the independent film “Home for Purim,” a hokey melodrama about a Southern-Jewish family in the 1940s and a dying mother’s reconciliation with her lesbian daughter. Guest and Levy conceived the film-within-the-film to be written by two self-important hacks (played by McKean and Bob Balaban), community-college professors whose pretensions and limitations were explored so completely that Guest and Levy even wrote the titles for 27 of the fictional duo’s plays. As in all Guest films, the parts were created with each actor in mind. When the outlines were finished, the actors offered input into their characters’ costumes, cars, even the set designs for their homes. Then they improvised their dialogue.

“By that point, Gene and I have written hundreds of cards delineating what happens in every scene,” Guest told me. “We have no rehearsal, just turn on the camera and people start talking.” (In the new film, the “Home for Purim” scenes are scripted).

Guest, who is 58, discussed “For Your Consideration” on our first day together at the Carlyle Hotel. He had flown in from the Toronto Film Festival and, because his room wasn’t ready, was given a suite for his interview. It was surprising to discover that he has white hair, though when you stop to think about it, it’s hard to pinpoint what Guest really looks like. He has appeared in all but the first of his films, “The Big Picture,” which starred Kevin Bacon, and he is such a chameleon — in “Consideration,” he plays Jay Berman, the director of “Home for Purim,” as an arty slob with a cartoonish haircut — that it was disconcerting to find him tall and slim, polite and dignified. He barely cracked a smile for the better part of two days, so the web of fine lines around his slate blue eyes was unexpected. He must laugh sometime.

What he did do was speak in a variety of accents and deliver countless impressions, including one of his father, distinguished and distant; George Burns, whispery and hair-raisingly accurate; and Alan Arkin, a voice Guest describes as “impatiently intelligent” (and very New York). It became clear that Guest’s primary way of experiencing the world is through sound. He seems to carry thousands of voices in his head, and each reveals an almost eerily realized character. The character that is Christopher Guest — smart, dry, fiercely emotional about his family and work and just as fiercely hidden — prefers a back seat, especially when he has the chance to praise his repertory company.

“A reporter once asked, ‘Is there someone you wish you could get on these movies?’ ” Guest recalled, settling on the couch. “I think in the back of his mind was, ‘This poor guy, he can’t get Angelina Jolie.’ And of course, these are the most talented people at what they do walking the earth.”

It was the Hollywood-star mentality, in all its magnified seventh-grade glory, that drove Guest to make “For Your Consideration.”

“People have said to me, ‘Gee, a guy in the dry cleaner said I should get an Academy Award for that thing I did,’ ” Guest said. “ ‘And you know, it was pretty good.’ And I say, ‘Well, maybe you shouldn’t go to that dry cleaner.’ ”

Guest’s first nomination of any kind was for an Obie Award for music he wrote with Paul Jacobs for the Off Broadway show “National Lampoon’s Lemmings,” in 1973. He never did find out if they won, he said, because the category was omitted during the ceremony. Then he and other Lampoon writers were nominated for three Grammys for their comedy records. “The first year, Cheech and Chong won,” Guest said. “Second year, Richard Pryor. Third year, Richard Pryor. And I thought, This isn’t fun at all.”

In 1976 he won an Emmy for writing a Lily Tomlin special, and he eventually did win a Grammy, in 2004, with Eugene Levy and Michael McKean, for the title song of “A Mighty Wind.” “I was struck by what happens to your psyche being nominated, the disruption of it,” Guest said. “But the reason I don’t look at this as just a movie about Hollywood is this could happen in any world — the Nobel Prize or the Booker Prize, anything — where people are in such a delicate state in terms of their esteem that there is no way to process the information.”

When he acts, Guest creates a character starting with the voice, an obsession he honed growing up in New York City, where he spent his free time in the bathroom. “There was some echo with the tile, so I could practice voices,” he said. When his parents took him out to dinner, he would listen to a waiter recite the specials, then order in the waiter’s voice, to the dismay of his father, Lord Peter Haden-Guest, then editorial director of the United Nations, and his mother, Jean Haden-Guest, the daughter of Russian Jewish immigrants who was a vice president of casting and talent at CBS. Guest grew up in Greenwich Village and went to the Little Red School House, P.S. 41 and the High School of Music and Art. After two years there, he left for the Stockbridge School in Massachusetts, where he played in Arlo Guthrie’s band and auditioned for the School of the Arts at N.Y.U.

“I did one of George’s monologues from ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?’ ” Guest said and sighed. “You know when you’re young you have this unbelievable stupidity and arrogance and ignorance all mixed in? Of course, it was meant to be done by a 50-year-old man. There was a panel of people, and someone said, ‘Are you willing to give your blood for the theater?’ And I thought, Wow, you know what? I don’t think so. I thought maybe there’d be some cute women, maybe in the acting class. What do you mean give my blood?

“So I went to Bard College for a year. And then, even though I didn’t think I should give my blood to the theater, I did go to N.Y.U., which is where I met Michael McKean. In my second year I auditioned for ‘Little Murders,’ which Alan Arkin was directing at Circle in the Square, and got a part.” Also in the cast were Fred Willard and Paul Benedict, another member of Guest’s repertory. (Guest kept working and eventually left school.) Although his real name is Christopher Haden-Guest, he changed it after an audition. “The director read the name aloud, he did this” — Guest made a face — “and said, ‘That’s a good one.’ And I said, ‘That’s actually my name.’ This speaks to my level of security at the time. I thought it sounded pretentious to them, so I dropped that part of it.”

Even so, when his father died in 1996, Guest succeeded to his title, becoming the fifth Baron Haden-Guest of Saling in the county of Essex. His wife of 22 years, Jamie Lee Curtis, is Lady Haden-Guest. (Although his half-brother from his father’s first marriage, the writer Anthony Haden-Guest, is older, he was not eligible, having been born out of wedlock.)

“Jamie calls the House of Lords ‘the lord thing,’ which is just right,” Guest said. “I actually went for a few years, before they kicked the hereditary peers out. My first day there I was lost. The corridors all look the same. The third time I go around, I see the same guard, who says, ‘Perhaps my lord would like a compass.’ With just a little smile on his face. That was worth the whole thing. I thought, Now we can go home.” But not before Curtis visited the gift shop and loaded up on barbecue aprons, oven mitts and matches, all with the House of Lords insignia. +

Guest stood, ready to check into his own room. “People ask me, ‘What’s your next film?’ And I never know,” he said. “I truly don’t have an idea now, and it may take another year before I do. There seems to be some organic inner timing where I need the time off. That’s the way it’s always been.”

Which is fine with Martin Shafer, chairman and C.E.O. of Castle Rock Entertainment — the company that has produced all of Guest’s films since “Guffman.” “Chris is not at all obsessed with himself or his movies,” Shafer said by phone. “He’s whatever the opposite of egotistical is. We’ve done 100 movies, and on each opening day I’m on the phone with the director giving the grosses. I ask Chris, ‘You want me to call you tonight and tell you how it did?’ And he says, ‘No, we can talk next week.’

“Some of the films will do better, some will do worse,” Shafer continued. “But he’s creating a body of work that’s exceptional. He’s also an economic filmmaker who doesn’t go a penny over. If he says $8 million, it’s $8 million. If he says the shoot is 24 days, it’s not 25 days. He has total control, and he never abuses that.”

Inside the elevator stood an elegant woman holding a small dog, and the elevator operator. Guest put his hand out, and the dog licked it effusively, in spasms of glee.

“Oh, well,” Guest said and hung his saturated hand out to dry while the elevator operator tried not to laugh. The woman insisted, “It’s O.K, he’s clean.” I started to laugh. The door opened on his floor, and Guest turned to me, extending his hand, shiny with dog spit. He looked me straight in the eye, deadpan, and with the slightest lift of his eyebrow, pulled me into the joke. In that wordless moment he seemed more entirely present and connected than he had been in any of the 90 minutes that preceded it. I could see by his expression that the moment was also mine to refuse, no harm done. I clasped his hand firmly and he stifled his smile, muttering pleasantries, and got out. As the door closed behind him, both the woman and the elevator operator looked embarrassed for me, stupid enough to have taken his soiled hand, and kept their eyes on the floor. The dog, however, panted at me eagerly. He smelled his friend.

The next day, at Mandolin Brothers, Guest said, “I’ve been buying guitars since 1964, and you fool yourself into thinking it’s the last one.” He strummed. “This is way too loud and way too good sounding.”

Sitting beside him was David Nichtern, Guest’s best friend since childhood. On their first day of nursery school, a bully threatened to beat up Nichtern and was beaten up by Guest instead. At 13, they started playing guitar together in Washington Square Park. Nichtern is a musician and composer who wrote the song “Midnight at the Oasis.” The two have a shorthand of baseball statistics, musical references, old jokes based on Guest’s impressions and the kind of long, easy silences Guest treasures.

They sat in what Guest called “the grown-up room,” for serious connoisseurs. Stan Jay brought out a succession of vintage guitars and mandolins, and as the two men played, customers peeked inside. Guest pretended not to notice. The previous day we talked about fame and how little he enjoys it.

“My wife actually can’t walk down the street without being recognized,” he said. “I can now, quite easily, but when I was on ‘Saturday Night Live’ in the mid ’80s, I couldn’t, and I didn’t like it. Obviously, I’m not as comfortable as Jamie is. You’ll turn around and she has her arms around three people and they’re taking pictures and she’s saying, ‘No, I like to make it with more tomato sauce.’ ”

Curtis last starred in the movie “Christmas With the Kranks,” in 2004, and she has built a career as a best-selling children’s-book author. So she and Guest both have to travel. “I don’t think I’ve ever been separated from Jamie for more than two weeks in 22 years,” Guest said. “That was always a rule, first as a couple, then as a family. And we’ve stuck to it.” They have two adopted children, Annie, 19, and Tom, 10.

I met with Curtis two weeks later at the Mark Hotel, while she was in New York to promote her latest book. Unlike Guest, who can be both ambling and perfunctory, Curtis gets straight to the point. I told her it was hard to imagine her reserved husband’s relationship with her flamboyant father, the actor Tony Curtis.

“He has none,” she said bluntly. “My father behaved badly once in front of Chris’s family and my daughter on her ninth birthday, and my husband has not spoken to him since. Correctly, by the way.”

While she’s used to the fact that Guest doesn’t talk or emote much, he can still crack her up. “We go to a function, like a charity dinner, and he starts moaning just loud enough for me to hear,” she said. “And I’m trying so hard not to laugh.” He is also, she says, an exceptionally kind person. “He sends a handwritten letter to every actor he has to cut out of his movies, even with the tiniest part,” she said. “He respects that process so much, and he does it so lovingly.”

While intimacy is not easy for Guest, Curtis added, “he’s never been more intimate than he is with his children, because children force you into it. Tom has a very vivid imagination, and with him Chris has invented an amalgam of characters from video and computer games, and they make up action-figure characters. Chris does the voice of every character. They have a fabulous time, it’s beautiful.” She smiled. “We have a collection of New Yorker cartoons, and one is a dinner-table scene where the father is holding up a cooked chicken. And he says, ‘Your mom cooks the chicken but your Dad makes it dance.’ Chris can make a chicken dance.”

It is that whimsy, tempered only by the insistence of human nature to exert itself, that characterizes Guest’s films, which are a departure from his baser beginnings in comedy. In a skit in “National Lampoon’s Lemmings,” he appeared as James Taylor and sang: “Farewell New York City/With your streets that flash like strobes/Farewell Carolina/Where I left my frontal lobes.”

He winced at the mention. “James Taylor came to the show with Carly Simon, and she was laughing and he wasn’t,” he said. “As a joke, it was a major cheap shot. They came backstage, and I was devastated, because he was such a hero to me. As a satirist you’re not supposed to care about that. I guess what I’m doing now really represents who I am and always was. It just took a while to happen.”

Meanwhile, Jay brought out more guitars for him and Nichtern to try, until Guest went back to the one he liked and they played bluegrass, side by side. The instruments were glorious, and the two men were swept up in the sound, the rush of playing they’ve been experiencing together for 45 years. Their energy soared with the music, and Guest kept his eyes closed in the swell of the moment, because this music, this moment, was his family, his passion, his history. The room was as packed with emotion, raw and exposed, as it possibly could be, and Guest didn’t have to say a word. He should have smiled. Life was good.

Alex Witchel is a staff writer for the magazine.


R. Emmett Tyrell once referred to Jimmy Carter as "the most incompetent leader of a Christian nation since Ethelred the Unready." George Bush seems hell-bent on wresting that distinction from Carter.

Is a Bush-Pelosi amnesty ahead?
By Patrick J. Buchanan


Thursday, November 16, 2006

With the resignation of Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, President Bush intends to fill the post with Florida's Mel Martinez, a Hispanic who led the battle in the U.S. Senate for amnesty for illegal aliens.

"Martinez is going to lead the fight for amnesty that Bush could not win when Republicans controlled the Congress," one angry RNC member told The Washington Times' Ralph Hallow.

Unable to extract an amnesty bill from Denny Hastert and Co. in the House like the McCain-Kennedy bill he supports, Bush is looking to cut a deal with San Francisco Nancy.

Amnesty is to be the Bush legacy, and Martinez is to be the face of the party on the most explosive domestic issue of our era. For that, GOP precinct workers walked the line to hold Congress for the party.

Bush and Karl Rove still have not gotten the message, and probably never will. They have swallowed the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard line that the party's tough stance against illegal immigration hurt with Hispanics and only a "comprehensive" immigration bill can heal the wounds. "Comprehensive" is the code word for amnesty.

But Bush and Rove are misreading the returns as badly as they misread the country when they predicted the GOP would hold onto both chambers. Let's have another look at those returns.

According to NumbersUSA, while Republicans lost 11.5 percent of their House seats, or one in nine, the Immigration Caucus of Tom Tancredo, the House hawks, lost 6.7 percent of its complement, only one in 16. Among Republicans given an "F" by immigration hawks, however, fully 25 percent lost their re-election bids, a bloodbath among the open-borders-and-amnesty-now crowd.

It was Bush's War and Republican scandals that lost America, not the party's stand on border security and immigration.

Imitation, it is said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Thus it is a testament to the popular appeal of the stop-the-invasion stand that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence.

Indulging in their favorite pastime, cherry-picking evidence, the neocons claim that the losses in Arizona by Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both hardliners, prove that Arizona and America reject a law-and-order approach to illegal immigration.

Yet Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a hardliner, won re-election easily.

More significant, Arizonans voted in landslides on Nov. 7 to deny bail to illegal aliens, to bar them from receiving any punitive damages in lawsuits and make English the state language. Among Latinos, 48 percent voted to make English the official language, just as, two years ago, 47 percent voted to cut off all welfare to anyone who could not prove he or she was in the country legally.

Latinos are patriots, too. They don't like their country's laws trampled on with impunity or their tax dollars going to support scofflaws, no matter their nationality.

Why did Graf lose? Jim Kolbe, the GOP congressman whom Graf chased out of the race, refused to endorse him, and Mehlman's RNC gutted him in the primary.

The neocons also point to the fall-off in the Hispanic vote for the GOP, from 38 percent in 2002 to 30 percent in 2006, and attribute the drop-off to calls for a border fence. Yet far more serious was the fall-off among white voters, whose support, as Steve Sailer of VDare.com points out, fell from 58 percent in 2002 to 51 percent.

The relevant truth: The GOP vote fell 7 or 8 percent among all voters. But the seven-point plunge among white voters is more ominous than the eight-point drop among Hispanics. Why?

Because the white vote in America, 80 percent of the electorate, is 13 times as large as the Hispanic vote, which accounts for only 6 percent of all voters. It is the defection of its white vote that is killing the GOP.

The Reagan Democrats are going home.

If Bush and Rove think they can win them back with amnesty and a guest-worker program that out-sources immigration policy to K Street, they will end up doing for the national party what Gov. George Pataki did for it in New York.

Had Bush made border security and less immigration a dividing issue with the Democrats, fewer GOP lawmakers would be working on their resumes.

That Democrats are more aware of this than Rove is apparent, as one reads the astonishing story in The Washington Post headlined, "Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration: Explosive Issue Not a Top Priority for Incoming Leaders."

The reporters summarized Democratic thinking thus:

"In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on immigration were also elected to Congress."

After being named RNC chair, Mehlman headed straight to the NAACP convention -- to apologize for the Nixon-Reagan strategy that gave the GOP the presidency in five of six straight elections.

And how has all that pandering availed Mehlman and Rove and George W. Bush?

Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .


From Town Hall:

Death of the Master
By Bruce Bartlett


Thursday, November 16, 2006

"And now this great master has left us. No one who has been close to him both professionally and scientifically would be able to describe the feeling that lies heavy on all of us. No words can express what he has been to us, and few of us if any will have yet resigned ourselves to the realization that from now on there is to be an impenetrable wall separating us from him, from his advice, his encouragement, his critical guidance—and that the road ahead will have to be traveled without him."

So wrote economist Joseph Schumpeter upon the death of his teacher, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk in 1914. The words apply equally well to another great master who has left us, Milton Friedman. Unquestionably the most important and influential economist of the second half of the 20th century, Friedman's work will live on for as long as the field of economics continues to be studied.

Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 in Brooklyn, New York. His path toward economics began at Rutgers University, from which he graduated in 1932. There, he came under the influence of Arthur Burns, an important economist who became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board under Richard Nixon. Friedman later called Burns the "guiding influence of my subsequent career."

Friedman started his graduate work at the University of Chicago, completing it at Columbia University. During World War II, he worked on tax policy at the U.S. Treasury Department in Washington. Following the war, Friedman joined the economics department at the University of Chicago, where he became the dominant expositor of what came to be called the Chicago School of Economics.

The 1950s were the high point of Friedman's scientific work in economics. His main accomplishment during this period was to resurrect the role of monetary policy in the economy. At that time, economists generally followed the theories of British economist John Maynard Keynes, who believed that fiscal policy (taxing and spending) was government's most powerful tool for influencing growth, inflation and business cycles. In the Keynesian model, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy (credit and interest rates) was essentially passive, with little direct economic impact.

Eventually, Friedman was successful in convincing most economists that Keynes was wrong. The Friedman view became known as monetarism and was instrumental in overturning the Keynesian orthodoxy in the 1970s. But Friedman's other scientific work also contributed to this development. This would include the "permanent income hypothesis," which says that temporary changes in incomes do not affect consumer spending, only permanent changes do. Friedman also was instrumental in debunking the idea that higher inflation would lower unemployment, as the Keynesians believed. Any such effect was temporary at best, Friedman argued. In the long run, inflation raises unemployment, he said, a view proven correct in the 1970s.

In the 1960s, Friedman became more active in politics and public policy. He was an adviser to Republican presidential candidates Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1968. In 1966, Friedman began a regular column for Newsweek that became must-reading for free-market economists until he gave it up in the early 1980s.

Friedman's most influential publication was the slender volume, Capitalism and Freedom, based on lectures given in 1956 but not published until 1962. In that book, he put forward one of the most powerful cases for the free market ever written. Its greatest virtues were the clarity and vigor of Friedman's exposition. It had enormous impact in making free market economics respectable once again, after being falsely blamed for the Great Depression. In his Monetary History of the United States, Friedman put principal blame for that disaster on the Federal Reserve, which allowed the money stock to shrink by one third, bringing on a massive deflation.

In 1976, Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences cited his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and stabilization policy. The following year, Friedman retired from active teaching and took up residence at Stanford's Hoover Institution. Although retired, he continued working until the very end. In 1980, Friedman probably achieved his greatest renown with the best-selling book and PBS television series, "Free To Choose," which explained to average people why free markets work best.

A key reason for Friedman's enormous output and influence is that he was blessed with a gifted partner, his wife Rose. A distinguished economist in her own right, she contributed heavily to her husband's thinking, most evident in their co-written memoir, Two Lucky People, published in 1998.

We mourn the death of Milton Friedman, who died in San Francisco on Nov. 16 at age 94. But we also celebrate his life and accomplishments, which will continue to provide guidance and inspiration. The master may be gone, but his work lives on.

Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, and prominent magazines and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action.

From The Corner at National Review Online:


Milton Friedman on the "War on Drugs"
[Andrew Stuttaford]


In a 1990 letter to Bill Bennett:

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault. Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

A voice of, and for, reason, Milton Friedman will be much missed.
Impressionist Week!


For those who love the vaud-e-ville, as Irving Cohen said, there isn't much of an opportunity to see this kind of entertaining any longer. This week is Impressionist Week on The David Letterman Show. Monday and Tuesday showcased excellent routines by old school impressionists Rich Little and Fred Travalena. Gordie Brown, featured in the clip above (clicking on the screen takes you to You Tube), performed Wednesday night and absolutely killed. This guy makes a great living in Vegas, I'm sure. He would have been immortal if he had been around during the days of The Ed Sullivan Show.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006


Time's ALL-TIME 100 Albums

It's always possible to quibble with selections on lists such as this. However, if the list is being organized chronologically and without rank (as this one is)it is positively ridiculous that it should include compilations and greatest hits collections.

(Introductory commentary below from New Music Tip Sheet.)


The music mavens at the venerable Time magazine have compiled their list of the "ALL-TIME 100" albums -- unranked and broken down by decade. We're not sure what's better: that only five albums of the past five years are among their 100 greatest, or that four of those five were by people who were dead before the '00s even began. Whatever. Anyway, here's the list in reverse chronological order (via NY Post):

2000s
Hank Williams - The Essential Hank Williams Collection
Kanye West - The College Dropout
Sam Cooke - Portrait Of A Legend 1951-1964
Elvis Presley - Elvis: 30 No. 1 Hits
Muddy Waters - The Anthology, 1947 - 1972
Radiohead - Kid A
Outkast - Stankonia
PJ Harvey - Stories From The City, Stories From The Sea
Eminem - The Marshall Mathers LP

1990s
Elvis Presley - Sunrise
Lucinda Williams - Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
Radiohead - OK Computer
The Notorious B.I.G. - Ready To Die
Bob Dylan - Time Out Of Mind
DJ Shadow - Endtroducing...
Oasis - (What's The Story) Moning Glory
Hole - Live Through This
Mary J. Blige - My Life
Pavement - Slanted And Enchanted
Dr. Dre - The Chronic
U2 - Achtung Baby
Nirvana - Nevermind
R.E.M. - Out Of Time
Various Artists - Phil Spector, Back To Mono (1958-1969)
Garth Brooks - Ropin' The Wind
James Brown - Star Time
A Tribe Called Quest - The Low End Theory


1980s
Madonna - Like A Prayer
Beastie Boys - Paul's Boutique
The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses
Public Enemy - It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back
N.W.A. - Straight Outta Compton
R.E.M. - Document
Eric B. And Rakim - Paid In Full
Prince - Sign O' The Times
U2 - The Joshua Tree
Paul Simon - Graceland
Metallica - Master Of Puppets
Run-DMC - Raising Hell
Bob Marley And The Wailers - Legend
Prince - Purple Rain
Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense
Chuck Berry - The Great Twenty-Eight
Michael Jackson - Thriller
AC/DC - Back In Black

1970s
The Clash - London Calling
Parliament/Funkadelic - One Nation Under A Groove
The Sex Pistols - Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours
The Eagles - Hotel California
The Ramones - Ramones
Stevie Wonder - Songs In The Key Of Life
Bruce Springsteen - Born To Run
Patti Smith - Horses
Willie Nelson - Red Headed Stranger
Al Green - Call Me
Elton John - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
David Bowie - The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust
The Rolling Stones - Exile On Main Street
Stevie Wonder - Talking Book
Jimmy Cliff And Various Artists - The Harder They Come
Joni Mitchell - Blue
Dolly Parton - Coat Of Many Colors
David Bowie - Hunky Dory
Led Zeppelin - IV
Black Sabbath - Paranoid
The Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers
Carole King - Tapestry
Marvin Gaye - What's Going On
The Who - Who's Next
Neil Young - After The Gold Rush
Simon & Garfunkel - Bridge Over Troubled Water
John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band
Van Morrison - Moondance

1960s
The Beatles - Abbey Road
Miles Davis - Bitches Brew
Sly & The Family Stone - Stand!
The Band - The Band
Van Morrison - Astral Weeks
Johnny Cash - At Folsom Prison
Aretha Franklin - Lady Soul
The Beatles - The Beatles ("The White Album")
The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Are You Experienced
Aretha Franklin - I Never Loved A Man The Way I Love You
The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground And Nico
Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
The Beatles - Revolver
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited
Otis Redding - Otis Blue
The Beatles - Rubber Soul
John Coltrane - A Love Supreme
James Brown - Live At The Apollo (1963)
Ray Charles - Modern Sounds In Country And Western Music
Robert Johnson - King Of The Delta Blues Singers

1950s
Miles Davis - Kind Of Blue
Little Richard - Here's Little Richard
Frank Sinatra - Songs For Swingin' Lovers
Frank Sinatra - In The Wee Small Hours

From Manchester Evening News:
Stop the clocks for Oasis retrospective
By Wil Marlow


IN 1994 Britain's rock fans were in the grip of a grunge invasion. American bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam dominated the charts with their heavy riffs and desolate lyrics.

Luckily Noel Gallagher was on hand to save the day. "I remember Nirvana had this two-chord song saying, 'I hate myself and I want to die'," says the Manchester-born Oasis songwriter. "And it was like, as much as I like Kurt Cobain, I'm not having that.

"I couldn't have people like that coming over here saying that they hate themselves and they want to die, that's rubbish. So I wrote early hit Live Forever at that time.
Advertisement your story continues below

"I'm not saying it was written directly as a retort to that, but kids don't need to hear that kind of nonsense. It seemed like to me he was a guy that had everything and was miserable about it, and we had f*** all.

"I still thought that getting up in the morning was the greatest thing ever because you didn't know where you'd end up at night, you know? We didn't have a pot to piss in, but it was great, man."

This was Oasis at the beginning - champions of the people, champions of themselves - a group of men with a deep desire to make music that meant something.

Today, despite selling millions of records, they're still as down to earth, still as cocksure as ever - stomping along rather than treading the fine line between arrogance and self-belief, and still making music they believe in.

It's an impressive feat, not least because of all the line-up changes (only Noel and brother Liam Gallagher are left from the beginning, currently with Gem Archer on guitar and Andy Bell on bass while Ringo Starr's son Zak Starkey is semi-official drummer), and the fall from grace as national heroes after some duff albums.

Aggressive

They're still an enticing live draw, holding on to a stadium-filling legion of core fans, and they've kept the less loyal interested with their entertaining interviews and the aggressive in-fighting between the Gallaghers.

But it's their insistence at doing things their own way, thank you very much, that has really kept them in favour with their fans.

Noel and Liam haven't changed at all. For a start, Noel still does his own shopping at the supermarket, and they've kept a 'can't-be-arsed' attitude to conquering the lucrative American market.

Even in bowing to record company pressure to do a best of, they've done it on their terms. The forthcoming Stop The Clocks compilation isn't the greatest hits collection fans may have expected, or even wanted - half the singles aren't there.

Instead it's a compilation of the songs that Oasis themselves think are their best, including some album tracks and b-sides.

"To me, the songs that are on it are the songs that we have generally played live over the last 14 years," says Noel. "Those are the songs that I feel is our best work. Five of us, four of us, can't sit in a room and pick a track listing.

"I always pick the set list and if anyone's got a problem with it they say to me they're not doing that. It's the same with the track list. I picked it, it went round, and I didn't get any of the usual phone calls at quarter to four in the morning," he laughs.

Savvy

People now bow to Noel's obvious savvy because Oasis' longevity is mostly due to his dedication and undeniable songwriting talent.

Before Noel joined, Oasis were just a bunch of school mates gigging around Manchester. Liam then invited Noel on board, who made himself sole songwriter, simplified the band's playing technique and demanded they aim for nothing less than the top of the charts.

But it took some time for his peers to realise his potential.

"I remember writing Cigarettes And Alcohol in my flat in Manchester," he says, "in those days I used to write on the electric guitar with my amp on 10 in my room in this block of flats.

"One of the guys that lived above me, I remember him once passing me on the stairs going, 'You're not going to write a song with that riff, are you? That's rubbish'. I was going, 'Listen, fat arse, it's going to be amazing when it comes out'.

"And I remember going down to the rehearsal room and bringing the song in. Bonehead used to always be the tut-tutter. I told him I've got this tune called Cigarettes And Alcohol, and he goes, 'Cigarettes And Alcohol? You've got to change the title'.

"And then I did the riff and he's just going, 'Woah, you can't do that, that's T-Rex'. And I was like, 'I don't give a shit who it is, no one's ever going to hear it anyway'."

Both were wrong. Cigarettes And Alcohol was a massive hit, among many others. The Oasis hit-making machine shows no signs of stopping or even slowing down. After a few critically-panned albums, their last, 2005's Don't Believe The Truth, was lauded by many as a return to form.

And while Noel and Liam continue to put new, up-and-coming bands in their place (Arctic Monkeys and The Klaxons are their latest sore points), as well as happily sharing their political views ("New Labour have destroyed politics in this country," Noel said recently), they'll always have an audience.

"To me 1/8this album3/8 is like looking back at old photos of your kid and going, 'Look at that, you've got an ice-cream on your head'," says Noel. "It's just like looking back in time and going, 'There's the tune'.

"And if we don't do as many great tunes for the next best of, then we'll see. But who's going to tell us we're not going to do any more great tunes? I reckon we'll be rockin' 'til the cows come home."

The Clocks EP is out now. The album Stop The Clocks is out on Monday, November 20.


Count Me in the Giuliani Camp
By Debbie Schlussel


Every day, I'm asked whom I'm supporting for President in 2008. I've looked over the potential candidates, and on the Republican side, I believe the best, by far, is Rudy Giuliani, who took the first step toward a run, yesterday, with an exploratory committee.

(On the Democratic side, the best guy who's been talked about as a Presidential contender is Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, who truly understands the Islamic threat and is a more moderate Democrat--which is why he'll never get the nomination.)

Yes, I'm pro-life and against gay rights, where Giuliani shares neither of my views on these issues. But, to me, the terrorism issue is far more important, #1 on the list. Right now, we have a President who is pro-life, against gay rights, and pretends to be the "Counterterrorism Prez." But, actually, he's done nothing substantive on any of these issues.

So, I'll take the guy who I know will have the guts to do what Bush does not. I believe Giuliani is that man. He's proven that time and again, whether it was when he told terror-supporting Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal to take his $10 million and shove it (right after 9/11) or when he severely restricted Yasser Arafat's travel in New York (kicking him out of a concert).

A man who will do those things vs. Bush PC on Islam is the man we need to run this country. He's probably also the man who can handle the illegal alien problem and actually see to it that something is done about it. Not sure on his position on guest workers, but we'll soon enough find out.

It will be a difficult matter for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate (and, again, I oppose Giuliani on these issues) to get the GOP nomination. We'll see.

So for those who want to know who I'm supporting for Prez, I say, "Viva Rudy." America's Mayor has what it takes to be America's President.

From What Goes On:

Paul and Ringo 'love' new Beatles album

Apple Corps Ltd/Capitol Records are to release the Beatles LOVE album in stereo and 5.1 November 21st. This will be the first Beatles album available in 5.1

The stereo CD will contain 78 minutes of music. The DVD surround sound version on DVD disc album will be a slightly extended version with 81 minutes of music.

After being asked by the remaining Beatles, Ringo and Paul, along with Yoko Ono Lennon and Olivia Harrison, to make experimental mixes from their master tapes for a collaboration with Cirque du Soleil, Sir George Martin, The Beatles legendary producer, and his son Giles Martin have been working with the entire archive of Beatles recordings to create LOVE. The result is an unprecedented approach to the music. Using the master tapes at Abbey Road Studios, Sir George and Giles have created a unique soundscape. The release of this album, which is also featured in the Cirque du Soleil/Apple Corps collaborative production of the same name at The Mirage in Las Vegas, has been much anticipated.

"This album puts the Beatles back together again, because suddenly there's John and George with me and Ringo," said Paul McCartney. "It's kind of magical."

"George and Giles did such a great job combining these tracks. It's really powerful for me and I even heard things I'd forgotten we'd recorded." commented Ringo Starr.

"The album has the feeling of love and that's why the title is Beatles LOVE," added Yoko Ono Lennon, "They have let everything that is beautiful and daring come out." "The music is stunning. I think the most amazing thing about it is that you can pull it apart and find that all the elements carry with it the essence of the entire song," said Olivia Harrison.

Andrew Slater, President & CEO Capitol Records said, "The Beatles and George Martin invented everything we love about modern recorded rock music. It is only fitting that they now shake things up and create the new blueprint for rediscovering and falling in love again with the soundtracks to our lives."

The 5.1 disc is a DVD-Audio/DVD-Video hybrid. The audio is presented in high-resolution 96/24 5.1 surround on the DVD-Audio part of the disc. The DVD-Video part carries 5.1 surround in DTS and Dolby Digital as well as a PCM stereo mix. This DVD album is designed to be played on DVD video equipment but will carry no video component.

The "LOVE" CD and DVD track listing is:

1. Because
2. Get Back
3. Glass Onion
4. Eleanor Rigby
Julia (Transition)
5. I Am The Walrus
6. I Want To Hold Your Hand
7. Drive My Car/The Word/What You're Doing
8. Gnik Nus
9. Something
Blue Jay Way (Transition)
10. Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite!/I Want You
(She's So Heavy)/Helter Skelter
11. Help!
12. Blackbird/Yesterday
13. Strawberry Fields Forever
14. Within You Without You/Tomorrow Never Knows
15. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
16. Octopus's Garden
17. Lady Madonna
18. Here Comes The Sun
The Inner Light (Transition)
19. Come Together/Dear Prudence
Cry Baby Cry (Transition)
20. Revolution
21. Back In The U.S.S.R.
22. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
23. A Day In The Life
24. Hey Jude
25. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)
26. All You Need Is Love


From Opinion Journal:

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.
BY JIM WEBB


Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.

Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes.

Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.

America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."

More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006



Virginia's Jim Webb Joins Strange Bedfellows
By Andrew Ferguson


Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Let those other pundits and reporters obsess over the new Democratic leadership as it brings its own special brand of ``progressive reform'' to Capitol Hill. (An all- vegan menu in the cafeteria? Hookahs in the cloakroom? Mandatory Birkenstocks in place of wingtips?)

I will be directing my attention to the back benches. I'll be watching Jim Webb.

With his stunning upset of George Allen, the heavily favored Republican incumbent, the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia arrives as the most exotic bird in the Washington aviary.

Unlike most modern politicians, Webb hasn't spent his entire adult life running, or plotting to run, for political office. He is a man of unimpeachable physical courage and battlefield heroism, having been awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts for his service as a Marine in Vietnam.

As the author of six novels, most of them bestsellers and all of them bristling with interesting ideas, he enters the Senate with a record of creative and intellectual accomplishment not seen there since the death of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

And best of all, his election last Tuesday makes him the most deeply conservative national Democrat since Grover Cleveland.

Mr. Webb, meet Ms. Pelosi.

Novice and Natural

Webb may be a novice politician but he's also a natural. He was careful to keep his most conservative leanings well camouflaged during the campaign.

He is, for instance, an absolutist on Second Amendment rights -- the right to keep and bear arms -- but he made sure the subject seldom arose as he campaigned in the liberal suburbs of northern Virginia.

He has written extensively about affirmative action, calling it ``a permeating state-sponsored racism that is as odious as the Jim Crow laws it sought to countermand.'' He has praised the Confederate battle flag and the sacrifice of the Confederate soldier with an eloquence that Jefferson Davis might envy.

Virginia Democrats pretended not to notice, and Webb was happy to let them.

His revulsion for Bill Clinton and his administration is deep, longstanding and very public. ``Every time I see him salute a Marine,'' he once told an interviewer, ``it infuriates me.''

`Ethical Fraudulence'

When Clinton was condemned for his promiscuous use of pardons in January 2001, Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ``It is a pleasurable experience to watch Bill Clinton finally being judged, even by his own party, for the ethical fraudulence that has characterized his entire political career.''

Yet five years later, when Clinton came to Virginia to raise money for the Webb campaign, Webb turned to the cameras and hugged him like a stuffed bear. He did the same with John Kerry, the former spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, whose hand, Webb once told Washingtonian magazine, he refused to shake for 20 years.

The man knows how to trim.

And the Allen campaign -- foreshadowing a puzzlement that will be common among Republicans -- didn't know what to do about him.

One day, late in the campaign, I found myself in the slightly surreal position of being a conservative columnist listening to a conservative spokesman for the conservative incumbent Senator Allen explaining that their Democratic opponent deserved to lose because he was -- too conservative.

`Problem With Women'

``He's got a real problem with women, especially in the military,'' said the spokesman, who asked not to be identified. He complained about the vehemence of Webb's opposition to affirmative action. He read me passages from a Webb encomium to the Confederacy.

``Maybe those views were acceptable in 1906,'' he said, ``but this is 2006.''

National Democrats may not know what to do with him either. Webb's arrival in Washington is being hailed as part of a new wave of moderation and pragmatism sweeping the liberal party.

Yet Webb is neither a moderate nor a pragmatist: He's a radical and a populist. His populism explains, among other things, his disdain for the Clintons. Both Bill and Hillary, he wrote in 2001, embody a ``a pervasive elitism, from people who were taught when young that the laws that applied to their countrymen did not necessarily apply to them.''

The irony here should give Democrats pause. The last time they were supposedly swept with moderation, it was the Clintonian pragmatism of the 1990s: pro-free trade, fiscally restrained, pro-globalization and accommodating of corporate America. Clinton himself once ruefully admitted that his administration's cautious economic policies made him an ``Eisenhower Republican.''

Buchanan Democrats

Webb, on the other hand, is better described as a Buchanan Democrat -- as in Pat Buchanan. Webb's brand of populism is hostile to free trade, antagonistic to corporate America, suspicious of the market and horrified by the effects of globalization, which has showered rewards on the elites while leaving behind the people who, as a populist, he means to represent.

How Webb fits into the byplay of Washington politicking and positioning is one of the most interesting questions to emerge from last Tuesday's Democratic landslide. He won't be able to trim for long.

So watch Webb. We will know soon enough whether this rare bird will be admired for his uncommon gifts and exotic plumage, or whether he will quickly go the way of the dodo.

(Andrew Ferguson is a Bloomberg News columnist. In 1992, he wrote speeches for President George H.W. Bush. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Andrew Ferguson in Washington at aferguson62@yahoo.com .

From Jihad Watch:
Ten things the Baker Commission report will not do
By Hugh Fitzgerald


Much ink flows on the subject of "Bush Senior's men" such as James Baker. Bush Senior, of course, is the former President who picked up a cool million for one speech delivered to a grateful Kuwait. (Remember plucky little Kuwait, the country that those awful Iraqis seized, and that it was necessary for the Americans to go to war to oust them, and above all to thereby relieve any worries in Saudi Arabia?) Bush Senior, of course, is the man who send Prince Bandar to teach his son, the current president, all about world affairs (see Woodward's book).

James Baker is a fixer, and friend of Saudi Arabia. His role is to find some face-saving way to get out of Iraq, because the current president is unable to frame things correctly, unable to recognize that he is trying to snatch a prolonged and agonizing defeat from the jaws of victory. He is doing so by staying in Iraq and trying to dampen its ethnic and especially sectarian hostilities, rather than recognizing the "victory" that was assured when Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown. That unrecognized "victory" (but recognized over and over again here) is that which results from what was not a result of American mishaps and misjudgments, but rather the inevitable result of the Shi'a coming into their own once the Sunni despot was removed. For nothing on earth will get the Sunni Arabs of Iraq to acquiesce in their new position, a position that properly reflects their constituting a mere 19% of the population, and having supported, actively or passively, the Sunni Arab discrimination, persecution, and outright mass murder of both Shi'a Arabs and Kurds.

What will the Baker Commission do?

Here are some things it won't do:

1) It won't demonstrate that its members have studied, and thoroughly assimilated, the central role of Jihad in the belief-system of Islam.

2) It won't demonstrate that its members understand that the instruments of Jihad are many, and that the most effective and at this point, therefore, most dangerous, are targeted and well-financed campaigns of Da'wa in the West, and demographic conquest, speeding up, in many of the countries of Western Europe.

3) It won't demonstrate an understanding that it is pointless to believe, or what's worse, to ask Israel to believe, that any treaties arrived at between Israel and Muslim states will ever be kept by the Muslim side. Those treaties are only entered into by Muslims for the sole purpose of buying time. Or, in the case of the "Palestinians" right now, they are entered into in order to start up again the disguised Jizyah payments of European and American foreign aid, when it is clear that the rich Arabs should be the ones supporting fellow members of the Muslim umma, and not Infidels. Those Infidels now incur many tens of billions of dollars in new expenses as a result of the need to monitor Muslim populations, and to guard airports, planes, train stations, trains, buses and bus depots, bridges, government buildings, churches, synagogues, Christian and Jewish schools and other institutions, and so much else all over the Bilad al-kufr, or Land of Infidelity, or better, the Lands of the Infidels.

4) It won't demonstrate any awareness that Syria is not a state run by Muslims, but rather of, by, and for Alawites. The Alawites are a military caste who make up a mere 12% of the Syrian population. Their syncretism – including the cult of Mary – causes Sunni Muslims to regard them not as full-fledged Muslims but rather as people who are dangerously Infidel. The one thing that terrifies the Alawites is fear of the local Muslims, the "real Muslims." To avoid their murderous enmity, which his father dealt with at Hama, Bashir al-Assad has decided to share wealth, and even some power, with Sunnis, and some Alawis have even intermarried with Sunnis. On the other hand, the Syrians have also obtained a fatwa from Shi'a Iran, declaring these Mary-worshippers to be true Muslims, and they have served as a willing conduit both for aid from Sunnis (and volunteers) to fellow Sunnis in Iraq, and for aid from Iranian Shi'a to the Shi'a Hizballah in Iran. Finally, the most recent development is the astonishing and apparently Syrian-government-permitted effort to allow Iranian and other Shi'a missionaries to convert not non-Muslims, but Sunni Muslims in Syria.

None of this will be in the Baker Commission Report, because none of it is grasped correctly at the upper levels of the government. And no one has realized that Bashir al-Assad can be replaced, or can be threatened with being replaced, by Alawite generals unwilling to go along with his dangerous game of placating both Sunnis and Shi'a -- which may in the end destroy forever not merely the Alawite rule, but endanger the lives of all those living in the Alawite neighborhoods and Alawite villages.

5) It won't demonstrate any understanding of the way in which the seemingly innocuous notion of "agreeing to talk" with Iran actually improves the domestic standing of Iran at home and abroad. Even the malevolent Al-Saud, who are trying (and failing) to make their own deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran, understand why in the context of the Middle East such talks would not be taken as demonstrating American sweet reason, but rather as a sign of American pliancy and appeasement. They will be taken as such in Iran and in the Muslim Arab countries.

6) It won't demonstrate an understanding that not Iraq, and not even the Middle East, but rather Western Europe, is now the main battleground of the Jihad. It will not recognize that unless the Infidel public is properly instructed, even minimally, in the tenets of the belief-system of Islam, then it will continue to pursue policies that are suicidal -- for them and for NATO, and for the very existence of the heart of the West and its impossible-but-lovable civilization. That civilization continues to exist despite the radix-malorum-cupiditas-est environment of the E.U., that "big market," and the notion, no longer confined to Marxists but now to be found among all the children of privilege (including the current President and of course devout readers of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page), that "poverty" is the problem in the Islamic countries and among Islamic peoples -- "poverty" and "lack of freedom," and could not possibly actually be located in the ideology of Islam itself.

7) It won't demonstrate an understanding that it would be folly to continue to refuse to exploit the natural fissures -- sectarian and ethnic -- that Iraq presents. Those fissures existed virtually since the first century of Islam. They were not caused and could not conceivably have been caused, by the Americans. The only thing that the Americans did is remove the despot who kept the lid, by mass murder, on the Kurds and on the Shi'a.

8) It will say nothing about the need to put a large tax on gasoline, and to do so right now as the world price of gasoline is falling, even as OPEC tries to bolster it by cutting production. Furthermore, the government should institute taxes on other uses of oil, and to promise to steadily raise those taxes, and to put the revenues thus obtained directly into a fund that will be used to encourage the development of non-oil sources of energy -- nuclear, solar, wind, and coal gasification projects -- and to encourage conservation through subsidies for mass transit. All of this is in order to put unceasing and constantly increasing pressure on demand for OPEC oil and hence on its prices. The government would do this if those who ran it understood the full menace of the worldwide and essentially endless Jihad. (When Tony Blair says it “will take a generation” to bring things under control, he demonstrates his own lack of comprehension: the Jihad will last as long as Islam, and constraining it will take many decades of sustained and systematic effort, by all the Infidel countries working together.)

The price of gasoline and of oil should rise steadily, so that investors in other kinds of energy never have to worry about a price collapse. This can be done by imposing taxes on ourselves, rather than allowing all the money to go to OPEC. A good deal of what OPEC has managed to charge over the past one-third century, when it took in ten trillion dollars, might have been saved had anyone in the American government understood the oil market, or not been among those able to profit so handsomely from the business contracts and other inducements offered by the Saudis and other Arabs.

9) It won’t demonstrate an understanding of the origins of the Sunni-Shi’a rift now exposed, but hardly created by, the situation in Iraq. Nor will it demonstrate a knowledge of Sunni-Shi’a tensions in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, and Lebanon, where Shi’a communities are treated with contempt and suspicion by many (not all) Sunnis, and are likely to be thrown into a state of agitation by the transfer of power to the Shi’a from the Sunnis in Iraq and the subsequent attempts by the Sunnis to regain power (and money) by force. Those attempts are likely in the end to be repelled, but not before a battle at least as long as the Iran-Iraq War breaks out, and has obvious consequences far outside the immediate theatre. Nor will the Baker Commission hint that this might, for Infidels, be a Good Thing, and at the very least serve as a Demonstration Project for Infidels in Europe, who need to view the spectacle of internecine warfare within the Camp of Islam, and to relate it to the attitudes and atmospherics of Islam – the violence, the aggression, the view of the world as one not of parties coming to compromise, but of the victor and the vanquished as the only two conceivable categories worth considering.

10) It won’t demonstrate an understanding of how it is possible to create and support an independent Kurdistan, by guaranteeing to Turkey that there will be no Kurdish claim on present Turkish territory, whatever claims are made on the Kurdish-populated parts of Syria and Iran. This should be done after having extracted a promise from the Kurds – a promise they will have to keep in order to retain the support of the American government that is essential for Kurdistan’s future. It won’t demonstrate that it understands that one of the most vulnerable points in Islam, one that needs to be exploited, is the use of Islam as a vehicle of Arab imperialism, political, cultural, and linguistic – which is exactly what Islam started out as, a belief-system concocted of pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore with bits and pieces of misremembered Judaism and Christianity thrown in. It was useful for persuading peoples conquered that the conquest was justified, and for helping to promote further conquest by Muslims inflamed with the desire to conduct their lives in fulfilling the duty of Jihad, jihad fi sabil allah.

It won’t demonstrate that it understands that 80% of the world’s Muslims are non-Arabs, and more of them can, through the spectacle of Kurds finally throwing off the rule by Arabs, learn to see Islam as that vehicle for the Arab national religion. This notion will reverberate among the Berbers of North Africa, especially in Morocco and Algeria, and also among the Berbers in the immigrant population in France, who may be partly split off from the Arabs and find the appeal of Islam dimmed the more it is seen as a product of, and instrument used by, the o’erweening Arabs. And the same is true for Muslims in East Asia, not all of whom would find themselves on the side of the Arabs in and out of Iraq trying to crush the Kurdish attempts at independence.

In Iran, the anxiety over an independent Kurdistan would be great. Not only would such a state appeal to Kurds inside Iran, and threaten the hold of the Islamic Republic of Iran on that part of the country, but a successful effort by the Kurds to create an independent Kurdistan in Iraq would be seen by Arabs in Khuzistan, and Baluchis, and Azeris (who with the Kurds constitute half of the population of the Islamic Republic of Iran) as a chance to rise up. And if the Islamic Republic is preoccupied with putting down internal uprisings, it is going to be less able to proceed untroubled with its nuclear project, or to be quite so unhindered in its attempts to defend that project from conceivable Western attack.

There are ten things that won’t be part of the Baker Commission Report.

It would be easy to discuss the report once its contents are known. But I know nothing about it. I thought it would be better, therefore, in advance of its release, or even in advance of the famous meeting between Baker’s Commission and Bush, to discuss merely ten of the important things that that Report Will Not Demonstrate, or rather, will demonstrate about the failings of the Commission’s members. They are, after all, Yesterday’s men. They are the very people who presided over the making of policy as OPEC battened and fattened, unconstrained by the slightest intelligent effort by any American government to construct an energy policy designed to limit the revenues of OPEC. Yet OPEC money funds mosques, madrasas, and other instruments of the worldwide Jihad, unhindered by any intelligent energy policy. These men apparently still believe that they are under no obligation to study Islam, as long as they can keep prating about the “need for stability” or about such trivial matters as “finding a solution to the (unsolvable) Israeli-Palestinian” question.

The public, or much of it, whether it is always in a position to speak out or not, is far ahead of these Wise Old Men who showed, in office, just how ignorant and unwise most of them were.

Bush tried messianism, the construction of a Light Unto the Muslim Nations that was based on a refusal to study Islam, and an inability to understand Iraq – but everything that has happened was perfectly predictable. The proof is that it all was predicted, here at Jihad Watch, and one can search in the Archives, and find it all, signed and dated.

The Baker Commission will be valuable only if it persuades the obstinate Bush to get out, as he should and must, of Iraq. Let Iraq be Iraq. Let coreligionists of Sunni Arabs and Shi’a Arabs send volunteers, and money (the more the better) and war materiel (the more expensive the better) into Iraq. And let the war within Iraq cause the Shi’a in eastern Saudi Arabia to become restive, and then to be put down by the Al-Saud. Hope also that Hizballah sends many eager volunteers right through Shi’a-wooing Syria (to the great relief of Christians, Druse, and Sunni Muslims in Lebanon) to help the Shi’a in Iraq.

Pocket the excuse the Baker Commission offers. Ignore all the rest. And hope that among the officers and men who served or are still serving in Iraq, and who were never properly informed about those sectarian and ethnic conflicts, who were never properly informed about Islam or about the various instruments of Jihad, there are those who will either remain and rise high in the army, or enter civilian life and replace the examples of Yesterday’s Men – such as the inimitable James Baker.